We don't have dozens of eyewitness accounts, in fact we don't have a single eyewitness account from anyone involved.
rebutted soundly by Lee Strobel and J Warner Wallace
And the bible has very little extra-biblical support to back it up.
rebutted years ago
Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible? | Cold Case Christianity
None of the supernatural claims or key claims about the foundation of Christianity have any evidence at all.
you are neatly sidestepping the whole debate and the cause of & definition of Faith = trust in the testimony of credible eyewitnesses
2 Peter 1:16
no human in history has blindly believed the claims of the Apostles about the resurrection of Jesus. No human who ever heard the claim was not initially skeptical. Every human who ever heard the claim was initially sceptical.
What many people have come to trust that Saint Peter in Saint Paul and the Apostles in the New Testament authors were trustworthy people. And that it's Less likely that they were wrong or lying then that the resurrection and supernatural miracles did not occur.
I witnessed testimony from credible believable trustworthy person. Is evidence it is accepted as direct evidence in every court of law on earth? You cannot say there is no evidence there is EXTRAORDINARY evidence given by the extraordinary transformation of the Apostles. Upon witnessing ( What they themselves came to believe was) the resurrection.
The only thing there is not is CNN, Fox News video coverage.
the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses
rebutted
, and why are you limiting it to four?
THAT'S a very good question
however, rebutted years ago by the same authors i referenced
all of the non-canonical gospels are PROVABLY late
for example, the Gospel of Thomas quotes the Diatesseron in Syriac... Same words same order
Syriac Diatesseron = 175-200ad
There were dozens of gospels written, and the church itself considers most of them illegitimate.
with cause, the three synoptic gospels, which were based on the book of Mark, were circulating amongst Christians from ~60ad...
the others were largely plagiarized by much later "upstarts" like Marcion
There were dozens of sects all following different gospels.
yes, ones they concocted
For a time, Marcionism was one of, if not the most popular form of Christianity. It started to die out in the 3rd century when a lot of the other rival Christian sects started to lose out to what became mainstream Christianity, however there are Islamic accounts of Marcionite sects lasting at least into the 10th century.
Mohamed, allegedly a prophet, may have been influenced by those "alternative" Christianities
This is one example of an early Christian sect that had very different views than what you believe. There are dozens of others that have even more unorthodox beliefs that date from the same time period. Some thought Jesus was an astrological being for example, and never appeared in human form.
violates accepted Scripture,risen Jesus had wounds, ate meals, etc.
If there were so many "eyewitnesses", how can you have such a massive disparity of views that short of a time after the supposed events?
again, non canonical gospels are probably false by text critical means, text criticism, eg. Details and names not consonant with first century Judah
One would think if Jesus was walking around within the previous couple decades, and there were living eyewitnesses, there would be a strong consensus about what he wants, and what should be done.
exactly why orthodoxy won out
We see the exact opposite though. We essentially had a plethora of Christian Fan-Fic which is what we'd expect out of a fabricated story that's open for anyone's interpretation.
except that orthodoxy won out, predictably
if we were both Spock Vulcan logical, this discussion would quickly boil down to either orthodox Christianity...the resurrection actually occurred
or the Islamic view, that the resurrection APPEARED to actually occur
but, if you accept that "impostor" view... Then how is it everyone on all sides were fooled?
John the beloved apostle and Mary mother of Jesus stood at the foot of the cross for hours? How is it they were fooled?
But if you say they were in on it? Then, how is it that pilot and Ananias and Caiaphas and the entire Jewish Sanhedrin. All of Jesus is enemies who wanted him crucified and also dealt with him all morning for hours on end? How is it that they were all fooled?
So if you then say that Jesus really was crucified and that an impostor took over his role AFTER the crucifixion. Then you have the same problem? How is it that the impostor? Fooled. All of the Apostles into thinking that he was really the risen Jesus, fooling them. So thoroughly that they all went to their executions, claiming that he was the real deal.
And once again if you say that they were all somehow in on the conspiracy, then what about Saint Paul. He was an ardent opponent? He was a pharisee. On the side of the Sanhedrin and they hostile Jewish authorities. But he said he saw the risen Jesus and so became a Christian.
Once again everyone on every side of the issue agreed that Jesus appeared to be risen. And the appearance of the risen Christ was so convincing that everyone went to their martyrdoms and executions for their testimony.
For 2000 years, the logic has been like this Saint Peter and Saint Paul were honest caring. Generous kind hearted men. Who always appeared to tell the truth and who devoted their lives to charity and social justice? They were activists for the poor. Their care and concern healed people. They certainly appeared to be the most trustworthy people in history.
They gave everyone their words of Honor that they had witnessed Jesus Christ crucified and then resurrected. They told everybody that they could trust their word. They gave them their word of Honor and they were executed dying for their word of Honor without changing or retracting their testimony.
So caught between a rock and a hard place caught between the improbability of a resurrection event and the improbability of Saint Peter and Saint Paul either lying or being deceptive...
for two thousand years, people have, weighing the evidence, chosen to accept the claims and testimony of Saint Peter in Saint Paul that resurrection actually occurred
that's the faith. That's the TRUSTING in What certainly seems by all appearances to be completely credible eyewitness testimony.
It is the case that people who reject the supernatural. Conclusion have been trying to figure out what "actually happened" for 2000 years. Mohammed was aware of their debates and discussions the Quran claims that "They are all without certain knowledge". Either the resurrection really occurred or everybody has been fooled the entire time. Which one?
